Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would suggest reading this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/558198.page (as an example of a situation in which a player attempts to hold a hypothetical position with a model)

Please note this thread is for the discussion of whether the terrain rules support hypothetical posiitons for models. Please avoid citing wms (wobbly model syndrome) terrain rules only please.

I would have to say option #3: discuss it with your opponent before the game (invariably this will end up being "No" 99.9% of the time).

Gotta agree with Andilus here. This is a very, very contextual situation and a blanket yes or no does not settle it.

Are you asking RAW, RAI or HYWPI?

Yes, models can absolutely exist in the middle of a Ruin wall. Since that's part if your example the answer must be Yes.

It saddens me that so many people are answering in direct opposition to the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, models can absolutely exist in the middle of a Ruin wall. Since that's part if your example the answer must be Yes.

It saddens me that so many people are answering in direct opposition to the actual rules.

100% this.

There are allowances for models to move up to 6 inches and another that says models can move through the wall of a ruin with a DT test. Therefore Clearly, as per RAW, models can absolutely exist in the middle of a Ruin wall.

Two errors in the poll:

1. The poll is set to multiple choice instead of either-or.
2. The question is bad, on "Have you stopped beating your wife?" levels.

No, for the reasons already mentioned in the thread. Unless explicitly stated otherwise you always measure range and LOS from the model's actual position on the table, and you are never given permission to point to a spot halfway through a wall and declare that your model will count as standing there.

rigeld2 wrote:
It saddens me that so many people are answering in direct opposition to the actual rules.

Or we just disagree about what the rules say. The question in the poll is whether you can point to a spot and say your model is there, not whether the rules would permit a model to be halfway through a wall if you could somehow suspend the laws of physics and put it there.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are allowances for models to move up to 6 inches and another that says models can move through the wall of a ruin with a DT test. Therefore Clearly, as per RAW, models can absolutely exist in the middle of a Ruin wall.

There are, however, no rules* that allow you to point to a spot in the middle of the wall and say that your model is there. So, while it would be perfectly legal according to the rules if your model was there, you will never be able to successfully put it there. And when you fail to put the model there it means that you may have considered moving to that spot, but you decided to move elsewhere instead.

*No, WMS does not let you do it.

 Peregrine wrote:
There are, however, no rules* that allow you to point to a spot in the middle of the wall and say that your model is there. So, while it would be perfectly legal according to the rules if your model was there, you will never be able to successfully put it there. And when you fail to put the model there it means that you may have considered moving to that spot, but you decided to move elsewhere instead.

*No, WMS does not let you do it.

You nee to re-read the WMS rules, it lets you do it. Coupled with the allowances for models to move up to 6 inches and another that says models can move through the wall of a ruin with a DT test.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It saddens me that so many people are answering in direct opposition to the actual rules.

Or we just disagree about what the rules say. The question in the poll is whether you can point to a spot and say your model is there, not whether the rules would permit a model to be halfway through a wall if you could somehow suspend the laws of physics and put it there.

Given the examples used in the question, your bolded statement is wrong.

How about we not rehash the previous thread here, and stick to allowing people to share their opinion?

Although I would echo the need for clarification on the poll, as the HIWPI answer is different to RAW.

I also have to wonder how different the vote would be with just the one example... I suspect that far more people would be fine with a model being halfway through a ruin wall than would accept a model being embedded in a hill...

Hmm, haven't been in YMDC for a while, lets see what they're up t-

Can I place my dude inside solid rock in order to game the rules for advantage?

Oh.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Hmm, haven't been in YMDC for a while, lets see what they're up t-

Can I place my dude inside solid rock in order to game the rules for advantage?

Oh.

Oh wow. That's original. Take something completely incorrect and out of context and pretend that's what people are advocating.
Thanks for your post. You've enlightened me and I'm sure many others.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, models can absolutely exist in the middle of a Ruin wall. Since that's part if your example the answer must be Yes.

It saddens me that so many people are answering in direct opposition to the actual rules.

I think it's because the pole is unclear so most people will vote HYWPI or RAI. Esp since playing strict RAW is often impossible. The debate basically beaks down to semantics and how you interpret 'move through' and where possible people tend to see things as they would like and tend to advocate that position even unconsciously. Most players I think are resistant to the idea that a model can be placed inside of a hill(myself among them) and will not want to check a box that says it's ok. With the question itself left up to interpretation between how the game should be played and how the rules say to play it, there is room to justify any answer. So cheer up rigeld

If ya cannot balance it on the location then ya cannot pull it off using Wobbly Model. Ya cannot balance a model inside a wall. If ya can manage to balance it on the wall, and spend the extra movement to get up there, go ahead and use WMS.

And Rigeld 2, that patronizing tone in your first post is really insulting.

 solkan wrote:
Two errors in the poll:

1. The poll is set to multiple choice instead of either-or.
2. The question is bad, on "Have you stopped beating your wife?" levels.

How would you phrase the question?

I answered yes, although I could have done with a third option to answer 'sometimes'. Halfway through a wall is fine, inside a hill not so much. It's not a simple yes or no answer, and pretty much relies on you and your opponent coming to an agreement on HYWPI.

 Crablezworth wrote:
How would you phrase the question?

I would have gone for something more along the lines of:

The difficult terrain rules allow models to move through elements (walls, trees, and other solid features) of the terrain feature. As such, can a model choose to end its movement partway through such a feature, using Wobbly Model Syndrome to mark its position?

With 'Yes', 'No' and 'Sometimes, on agreement with your opponent' options...

I would also, as previously mentioned, make it clear whether I was looking for a RAW answer or a WYWPI answer.

WMS does not apply here.

pg 11 - "If you delicately balance it (model) in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken."

This is the requirement for WMS, that it can be placed in a certain position but is in danger of falling from that position.

The rules for difficult terrain tells us that as part of a move through difficult terrain "..models can move through walls, doors and windows and all similarly solid obstacles.."

Definition of 'through' from English Oxford DIctionary - "1. moving in one side and out of the other side of (an opening, channel, or location)"

Surley this is crystal clear?

Yes, if both you and your opponent agree to do it, which usually means that it will end up being no.

If I recall for WMS, you also have to place your model back for determining LOS for shooting and charging. I don't see how you could hold say, a Space Marine model, halfway between a wall without taking out a Dremel and cutting a Space Marine shaped hole in the terrain.

If both players agreed on it before hand however, sure, it is absolutely fine.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How would you phrase the question?

I would have gone for something more along the lines of:

The difficult terrain rules allow models to move through elements (walls, trees, and other solid features) of the terrain feature. As such, can a model choose to end its movement partway through such a feature, using Wobbly Model Syndrome to mark its position?

With 'Yes', 'No' and 'Sometimes, on agreement with your opponent' options...

I would also, as previously mentioned, make it clear whether I was looking for a RAW answer or a WYWPI answer.

Better question, but you should leave the sometimes off, since if both parties agree, you can bend/break any rule.

The 'sometimes' would cover those players who see no problem with models walking through walls but have issues with them walking through hills. If the poll is intended to establish how people are actually playing it, rather than strict RAW, that's an important distinction.

And even on a RAW poll, there are people who are seeing a difference between walking through walls and trees, and walking through hills and wrecks. Even though that distinction doesn't actually exist in the rules, people's perception of the RAW is coloured by their expectations of what should and shouldn't be allowed... So even on a strict RAW poll, some people are going to vote yes only for moving through certain types of difficult terrain.

So whether the poll is looking for RAW or WYWPI, a straight 'yes or no' poll is not going to paint an accurate picture.

 insaniak wrote:
The 'sometimes' would cover those players who see no problem with models walking through walls but have issues with them walking through hills. If the poll is intended to establish how people are actually playing it, rather than strict RAW, that's an important distinction.

And even on a RAW poll, there are people who are seeing a difference between walking through walls and trees, and walking through hills and wrecks. Even though that distinction doesn't actually exist in the rules, people's perception of the RAW is coloured by their expectations of what should and shouldn't be allowed... So even on a strict RAW poll, some people are going to vote yes only for moving through certain types of difficult terrain.

So whether the poll is looking for RAW or WYWPI, a straight 'yes or no' poll is not going to paint an accurate picture.

The question is not about walking through objects, but about placement of models.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The 'sometimes' would cover those players who see no problem with models walking through walls but have issues with them walking through hills. If the poll is intended to establish how people are actually playing it, rather than strict RAW, that's an important distinction.

And even on a RAW poll, there are people who are seeing a difference between walking through walls and trees, and walking through hills and wrecks. Even though that distinction doesn't actually exist in the rules, people's perception of the RAW is coloured by their expectations of what should and shouldn't be allowed... So even on a strict RAW poll, some people are going to vote yes only for moving through certain types of difficult terrain.

So whether the poll is looking for RAW or WYWPI, a straight 'yes or no' poll is not going to paint an accurate picture.

The question is not about walking through objects, but about placement of models.

That is really the same issue.

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is really the same issue.

No it's not. A person can believe just fine that a model can move through a ruined wall, without believing that model can stop its movement in the middle of that wall, remaining embedded into it. In fact I'm pretty sure that is the clear majority position as well as the intended way to play the game.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is really the same issue.

No it's not. A person can believe just fine that a model can move through a ruined wall, without believing that model can stop its movement in the middle of that wall, remaining embedded into it. In fact I'm pretty sure that is the clear majority position as well as the intended way to play the game.

No really it is not a different issue.

You are given allowance to move up to 6 inches and also given permission to ignore ruined walls when moving. There is nothing restricting you from stopping anywhere before the 6 inches is up in this situation and that could mean within the wall you are freely allowed to move through.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You are given allowance to move up to 6 inches and also given permission to ignore ruined walls when moving. There is nothing restricting you from stopping anywhere before the 6 inches is up in this situation and that could mean within the wall you are freely allowed to move through.

Yes there is! The fact that you cannot place the model inside the wall!

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are given allowance to move up to 6 inches and also given permission to ignore ruined walls when moving. There is nothing restricting you from stopping anywhere before the 6 inches is up in this situation and that could mean within the wall you are freely allowed to move through.

And you keep ignoring the fact that you are not given permission to measure range or draw LOS from anywhere other than the model's actual position on the table. You are permitted to end your move inside a wall, but until you actually place the model inside the wall you have not moved there. If you place the model anywhere else then you have only considered moving inside the wall and have decided to place the model elsewhere instead. All range and LOS will then be done using the model's real position on the table, which is not inside the wall.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You are given allowance to move up to 6 inches and also given permission to ignore ruined walls when moving. There is nothing restricting you from stopping anywhere before the 6 inches is up in this situation and that could mean within the wall you are freely allowed to move through.

Yes there is! The fact that you cannot place the model inside the wall!

So where is this rule, Citation needed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are given allowance to move up to 6 inches and also given permission to ignore ruined walls when moving. There is nothing restricting you from stopping anywhere before the 6 inches is up in this situation and that could mean within the wall you are freely allowed to move through.

And you keep ignoring the fact that you are not given permission to measure range or draw LOS from anywhere other than the model's actual position on the table. You are permitted to end your move inside a wall, but until you actually place the model inside the wall you have not moved there. If you place the model anywhere else then you have only considered moving inside the wall and have decided to place the model elsewhere instead. All range and LOS will then be done using the model's real position on the table, which is not inside the wall.

Luckily WMS gives permission to place the model in a different location but act as if the model is in the intended location.